indianajonesfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:When characters, etc. have the same name...
So I was thinking about this last night, how to best organize characters and other entries that would have the same name - like Molly and Molly (schoolgirl), Omar and Omar (Raiders), and Waiter and Waiter (individual). I think that the best way to have a consistent identification scheme is probably to use the source material as the parenthetical information. We use the full name of the source material (film, novel, etc.) except we lop off the "Indiana Jones and the" to keep things short. For characters that appear in the Young Indy films, we use the final film names and not the Chronicles episode titles... unless the character only appears in the Chronicles episode (ie is a bookend character that needs disambiguation). So for the cases above we should have: * Molly (Masks of Evil) and Molly (Spear of Destiny) * Omar (My First Adventure) and Omar (Raiders of the Lost Ark) * Waiter (Emperor's Tomb) and Waiter (Passion for Life) this could then further simplify, if needed, so that characters from the 4 theatrical movies hopefully then could have their parenthetical identifier removed - so Omar from Raiders would just be Omar. In the case that two entries come from the same source (such as Sergeant (individual) and Sergeant (Wurrfler), we could A) defer to the credits first, and then if not, simply number them. in this case, Sergeant 1 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and Sergeant 2 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) if we can't come up with more descriptive names for them. hopefully there won't be two Petes with no last name in the same source. In the case that an entry needs disambiguation, and is found in multiple sources (not counting adaptations of a primary source), perhaps that entry could either have the non-parenthetical entry, while the other entry with a similar name gets the parenthetical one. (ie, if for some reason there was a second Sophia Hapgood that only appears in one place, that would be Sophia Hapgood (Story of Lameness), while the multiple-source one would just be Sophia Hapgood. Seeing a source after a name would indicate that this is a unique person and not a generic job, so anyone who is Job Title (individual could then changed to be Job Title (source), like Pilot (individual) would be Pilot (Raiders of the Lost Ark). this system should also work for when we have non-character entries with need for disambiguation... right now we have the Collette (boat from Oganga, The Giver and Taker of Life), and i think there's a as-yet-not-made Collette who hangs out with Remy when on break from the front. they will be Collette (Oganga, The Giver and Taker of Life) and Collette (whatever episode that is). What do people think? Jawajames 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) *I think it would go a long way towards solving our disambiguation problem, but would strongly impact our in-universe policy for articles. If we can find SOME solution that can elegantly handle the problem without resorting to out-of-universe parenthetical tags, I think that would be preferable, but such a solution may not exist. jSarek 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC) **Collette can very easily be Collette (boat)/Collette (individual) but the Sergeant's name is actually named Sergeant for all intents and purposes whereas the Wurrfler guy is 100% conjecture. If it's any consolation the IJ and the Sky Pirates (and Other Tales) sourcebook does hint all these titles are files kept on Jones so it's in-universe referencing. ;) What about the two Aristotles and Platos in Travels with Father? [[User:Vetinari|'Vetinari']] (Appointment) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ***but going back to the main concept of rules, with some additions: :1. movie characters gets the primary entry without needing a source (unless the idea is to disambiguate them as a unique individual from the general job title) :2. historical figures trump purely fictional characters :3. non-movie characters get the source added for disambiguation if needed, :4. humans trump non-humans, which can get an identifier as what they are. :5. named characters trump conjectural named characters. thus we would have: : Sergeant (Raiders of the Lost Ark) -- to disambiguate from the general rank of Sergeant and the Wurrfler sergeant can be Sergeant 2 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) : Collette and Collette (boat) : Plato and Plato (donkey) : Aristotle and Aristotle (Travels with Father) : Indiana and Indiana (state) and when making up conjectural titles for characters that appear in multiples, like the German Agent, Second German Agent, Third German Agent - perhaps we should stick to one numbering system that makes it easiest to index.. German Agent, German Agent 2, German Agent 3 (1 is not used) - this only applies for roles when no credited or scripted name or nickname is given, and not for credited roles like "Second Nazi", "Russian Suit 2", "Paramedic #2" etc. does this sound good? Jawajames 07:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) *I agree with jSarek's point about in-universe rules: I don't think we should include out-of-universe info in the article titles. Otherwise, I think your rules about which subject gets to claim the unqualified title are solid. --Icybro 19:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ** Vetinari mentioned that the titles can be considered in-universe via IJ and the Sky Pirates (and Other Tales). otherwise, what would be the best descriptor for the parenthetical information - we could always mention (date place) for when they appeared, but some stories have ambiguities or unknowns for either of those. but all items have a source title. source and then numbering works well for things that we might end up with a lot of, like Sergeants. and it creates for a more standard system than coming up with more subjective parenthetical explanations like (Wurrfler) (since this guy isn't actually seen on the Wurrfler, but on the Bantu Wind). i really think that "Sergeant (Raiders of the Lost Ark)" is way more useful than "Sergeant (individual)" and that "Waiter (Emperor's Tomb)" and "Waiter (Passion for Life)" are way more useful than "Waiter" and "Waiter (individual)". Jawajames 05:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC) * Sky Pirates (and Other Tales) is not a compelling precedent for the treatment of titles as in-universe; it's a game book, and games have a habit of mixing in-universe and out-of-universe info indiscriminately. (Another example: the first character you encounter in Indiana Jones and his Desktop Adventures is Bonifacio, who promptly explains how to use the mouse to move around. This information is clearly out-of-universe.) Your point about descriptive titles is a good one; clearly, "Waiter" and "Waiter (individual)" are not sufficiently differentiated. But calling them "Waiter (Shanghai)" and "Waiter (Paris)" is probably good enough. (I actually don't have a problem with "Sergeant (Wurrfler)", because it's more descriptive than "Sergeant (individual)" and though he may only be seen on the Bantu Wind, it's clear he came from the Wurrfler.) I understand the desire to apply some standard rules to this sort of dilemma; but I don't think we should break our in-universe/out-of-universe rules to do so. And this is a tricky problem, one that's not real conducive to any rigid treatment—there are, after all, two Aristotles in Travels with Father: the character (a Greek peasant of some sort, as I recall?) who appears in the flesh, and the philosopher, who's discussed at some length. --Icybro 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) * in the case of Aristotle, historical figure trumps fictional character, so "Aristotle" would be the ancient Greek philosopher, and "Aristotle (Greek peasant)" would be the one that Indy and Henry hitched a ride with. the problem with assigning just their location as descriptor is that i couldn't just use "Aristotle (Greece)" for the cart owner because the original Aristotle also fits that description, and then we need some sort of standardization for what descriptions to use for people... would the one who is currently "Molly (schoolgirl)" be "Molly (Glastonbury)" or "Molly (England)" or "Molly (United Kingdom)" or whatnot - and when a location is very vague (for instance, if all we get about a person is that they were last seen in South America, do we put xxx (South America) when most other people might have a city or country assigned to them. and what if that character is seen in more than one location... :if we don't focus on location for descriptor, but assign some sort of role, such as "peasant", "schoolgirl", "Blueshirt", "slave", that works for when we are disambiguating a name, but not really an unnamed character, like Sergeant, where their entry is their role, so then we tend to fall back to locations... : so if we don't use sources, use the most specific location known for where that person is found (city, country, or vessel), and if that doesn't work, then we rely on roles? or do we use locations for characters known for their roles, and roles for characters with actual names? : this is why i like sources better - one consistent convention. Jawajames 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC) * But it's not just one consistent convention, it's one more convention in a long list (e.g. "historical figure trumps fictional character" and "two entries from the same source get numbers"). Which is fine—it's a complex problem, so the solution needs to be somewhat sophisticated—except that this specific convention breaks our style rules. : I think for named characters, in the vast majority of cases, their role is probably good enough for disambiguation purposes. For unnamed characters listed by their role, a location is probably the best disambiguation tag. : Note that we really can't hope to design a system that covers all cases. There may be two unnamed French waiters in the canon, maybe working at the same bar; and if so, we may need to include additional info in their titles to keep them straight, e.g. "Fat Laupin Agile Waiter" and "Skinny Laupin Agile Waiter." -Icybro 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on everyone's feedback so far, here's the latest draft of guidelines for disambiguating entries that share the same name: For determining who gets the primary entry, and who gets relegated to the entry with the parenthetical identifier: :1. movie characters trump YIJC/AoYIJ characters, which trump non-movie/non-YIJC characters. :2. historical figures trump purely fictional characters. :3. characters with actual names trump characters with conjectural names. :4. characters that appear in more than one story trump characters appearing in only one story. (story, not just source) :5. humans trump non-humans, which can get an identifier as what they are. :6. when creating multiple conjecturally named role-based entries from the same source, use numbering after the entry name for the non-first entries : ie, German Agent (1), German Agent (2), German Agent (3). For determining what gets put into that parenthetical identifier: :1. If the entry is a name, a role/profession goes into the parentheses. :2. If the entry is a role, a definitive location goes into the parentheses (city or vessel name, if known, then country). Given this set of guidelines, here's how previous examples would come out: * Omar (Raiders) should become the main "Omar" entry, while the current Omar should become "Omar (slave)". * Molly from Masks of Evil should remain "Molly", while Molly (schoolgirl) from Spear of Destiny should remain "Molly (schoolgirl)". * Waiter (individual) from Passion for Life should be become "Waiter" while Waiter from Emperor's Tomb should become "Waiter (Shanghai)" (or wherever he is). * Aristotle and Plato the historical figures should be "Aristotle" and "Plato", while Aristotle the cart driver and Plato the donkey should be "Aristotle (cart driver)" and "Plato (donkey)" * Collette the prostitute should be "Collette"; while Collette should become "Collette (riverboat)" * the hypothetical fat and skinny Lapin Agile waiters would be "Waiter (Le Lapin Agile)" and "Waiter 2 (Le Lapin Agile)" - this is much easier to look up than having to remember: "was it Thin, or was it Skinny".. and when the entries get alphabetized in the category lists, they will appear right next to each other, rather than having one entry be under F and the other under S. one thing remains: how to differentiate between an individual character and a generic role, like Sergeant the rank, and Sergeant (individual) -- should the generic get the primary? should the individual get the primary? do we even really need these generic entries, which more or less dictionary entries and possibly lists of people with that role? Once consensus is reached, we can start repairing existing entries. Jawajames 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :I'm for rank/title/role lists, it's information on who was one and which source. I would have thought Collette goes to a disambiguation or to the person with a Youmay tag pointing to the boat. Don't care for the 2, 3 etc.-style numbering, maybe "German agent (2)" (unless it's an individual comic) or something. Which would make more sense to me for the unnamed Russian Suits. I mean, they're both technically a "Russian Suit" just one is credited before the other for whatever reason so Russian Suit (1) and Russian Suit (2)? :And what would decide who's two and who is three? First on screen from left to right? [[User:Vetinari|'Vetinari']] (Appointment) 21:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) * Using parentheses for the numbers is fine with me, perhaps to indicate that it is the wiki's numbering and not an official credited name (such as for comic issues). Jawajames 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ---- Omar (the slave) is now Omar (slave). Omar (Raiders) now gets to be Omar. Jawajames 21:19, October 29, 2009 (UTC) Now that we have two French Sergeant characters (French Sergeant from "Congo, January 1917" and French Sergeant (Verdun) from "Verdun, September 1916") with equal claim to the title - it seems that we should make a disambiguation page, and move the original entry to one of these: French Sergeant (Congo) (shorter, and matches episode title) or French Sergeant (French Equatorial Africa) (technically more correct, as they aren't in the Congo basin at all, but in the Gabon part of FEA). Jawajames 00:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC) *Agreed. Though while this page reminds me: Journey of Radiance has Professor Jones mentioning he's visiting Fen Yu about three times. Behind the Great Wall shows he's visiting historical Yen Fu. So what should the article be named? Vetinari(Appointment) 17:11, January 28, 2010 (UTC) **French Sergeant moved to French Sergeant (French Equatorial Africa), with disambiguation page set up. As for Fen Yu and Yen Fu, if they are meant to be the same person, I'm going to say that Film canon overrides real world history. For whatever reason, in the Indyverse, the famous historian is Fen Yu (or at least Indy and his family think so). just use the BTS and external links to point out the discrepancy. Jawajames 22:15, January 29, 2010 (UTC)